Foot orthoses for people with rheumatoid arthritis: a survey of prescription habits among podiatrists.
Arthritis, Rheumatoid
/ rehabilitation
Australia
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Foot Orthoses
/ statistics & numerical data
Habits
Health Care Surveys
Humans
Male
New Zealand
Podiatry
/ statistics & numerical data
Prescriptions
/ statistics & numerical data
Professional Practice
/ statistics & numerical data
Prosthesis Design
United Kingdom
Foot
Orthoses
Orthotic devices
Podiatry
Rheumatoid arthritis
Journal
Journal of foot and ankle research
ISSN: 1757-1146
Titre abrégé: J Foot Ankle Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101471610
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
20
07
2018
accepted:
14
01
2019
entrez:
1
2
2019
pubmed:
1
2
2019
medline:
29
5
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Guidelines recommend foot orthoses for people with both early (< 2 years) and established rheumatoid arthritis (RA). While prefabricated foot orthoses are cheaper and can exhibit comparable effects to customised devices, the available evidence for their effectiveness is inconsistent. Little is known about what types of foot orthoses clinicians prescribe. This study describes the foot orthoses prescription habits of podiatrists for people with rheumatoid arthritis. One hundred and eighty-three podiatrists from the United Kingdom (UK) ( UK respondents were more likely to prescribe prefabricated orthoses for early RA ( Considerable variation was seen in the self-reported foot orthoses prescription habits of respondents for people with RA. Variation between countries and disease stage was seen in type of orthoses, specific brands, manufacturing methods, and materials prescribed. The results allow podiatrists and broader health service providers to compare their practice against reported national and international patterns.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Guidelines recommend foot orthoses for people with both early (< 2 years) and established rheumatoid arthritis (RA). While prefabricated foot orthoses are cheaper and can exhibit comparable effects to customised devices, the available evidence for their effectiveness is inconsistent. Little is known about what types of foot orthoses clinicians prescribe. This study describes the foot orthoses prescription habits of podiatrists for people with rheumatoid arthritis.
METHODS
METHODS
One hundred and eighty-three podiatrists from the United Kingdom (UK) (
RESULTS
RESULTS
UK respondents were more likely to prescribe prefabricated orthoses for early RA (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Considerable variation was seen in the self-reported foot orthoses prescription habits of respondents for people with RA. Variation between countries and disease stage was seen in type of orthoses, specific brands, manufacturing methods, and materials prescribed. The results allow podiatrists and broader health service providers to compare their practice against reported national and international patterns.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30700994
doi: 10.1186/s13047-019-0314-5
pii: 314
pmc: PMC6347791
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7Subventions
Organisme : Versus Arthritis
ID : 22082
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PDA/03/07/047
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PDF-2013-06-055
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Ethical approval was received from the School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee, University of Leeds (Ref: MREC15–052). Subsequent approval was also gained from La Trobe University (Ref: MREC15–052) and Auckland University (Ref: 16/133) of Technology.Not applicable.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Références
J Rheumatol. 2000 Jul;27(7):1643-7
pubmed: 10914845
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2001 Apr;91(4):174-83
pubmed: 11319247
J Rheumatol. 2002 Jul;29(7):1377-83
pubmed: 12136891
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2002 Dec;16(5):707-22
pubmed: 12473269
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2003 Nov-Dec;93(6):492-8
pubmed: 14623992
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2004 May-Jun;94(3):229-38
pubmed: 15153583
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006 Feb;45(2):139-45
pubmed: 16278281
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006 Dec 21;7:102
pubmed: 17184535
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008 Jan;23(1):93-100
pubmed: 17904711
Acta Orthop. 2008 Apr;79(2):257-61
pubmed: 18484253
J Foot Ankle Res. 2009 Jun 16;2:20
pubmed: 19531262
J Foot Ankle Res. 2009 Jul 09;2:23
pubmed: 19589160
Clin Rheumatol. 2010 Mar;29(3):255-71
pubmed: 19997766
Arthritis Res Ther. 2010;12(1):R3
pubmed: 20055986
J Foot Ankle Res. 2010 May 17;3:8
pubmed: 20478038
J Foot Ankle Res. 2011 Feb 10;4:8
pubmed: 21310034
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012 Mar;64(3):311-20
pubmed: 22162279
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 May;93(5):863-70
pubmed: 22541310
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012 Nov;64(11):1641-8
pubmed: 22807070
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014 Oct;66(10):1456-64
pubmed: 23836484
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2014 Nov;104(6):610-6
pubmed: 25514273
J Foot Ankle Res. 2016 Mar 22;9:11
pubmed: 27006703
Scand J Rheumatol. 2017 May;46(3):187-193
pubmed: 27466000
J Foot Ankle Res. 2017 Jun 7;10:23
pubmed: 28596806
J Foot Ankle Res. 2017 Aug 1;10:35
pubmed: 28775767
J Foot Ankle Res. 2018 Nov 26;11:64
pubmed: 30505351